Example of Phil's Bias against E-5oo versus Canon XT

Just another example of bias: Phil's review before test on this site of the E-500. Phil says:

" As you can see with the E-500 set to HQ 1/8 it's not far behind the EOS 350D for the number of frames shot in 30 seconds, ... "

But what Phil does not do is test the same size file. In the first comparison, the file size for the E-500 is 1,830 KB, while the Canon's file size is 1,200 KB. If one crops to adjust for usual extra cropping required for the sensor size of the XT, the Canon should be tested with a file greater than 2,000 KB.

In the second comparison Phil says the E-500 is a whole lot slower:

" ... however switch up to a higher quality setting (HQ 1/4) and the performance isn't so good, and you have to keep releasing and re-pressing the shutter release. "

BUT, the size of the E-500 file is 3,900 KB, while the Canon's is effectively half the size, the whole file being 2,400 KB.

If Phil wasn't biased, he'd compare Apples with Apples.

Since the E-500's HQ 1/8 standard is effectively the same size as Canon's HQ, that file being 2,400 KB on the Canon compared to the E-500's 1830 KB ( a file on most printers that will not have to be cropped to fit production papers). If one compares those two files, the E-500 is faster, 80 to 71 frames.

I wonder how good the E-500 would have been if Olympus had of put some more fast cache in the camera, and put some settings in the camera called " XT HQ res", just for the reviewers to test apples with apples ... but then again, that's not possable is it, with the 4:3 having an advantage in being a wider shaped sensor.

Here we go again....

I'm getting one whether his "opinion" is biased or not. I could give a rats what he said about it.

I know that the E-1 and E-300 are winners. I could care less if the rest of the world thinks otherwise. In fact the more of you who believe this BS and move over to the dark side the better!

I would pick the 500 over the XT anyday!

Some things aren't worth the effort. This is a camera review, not a scientific experiment. Use your brain (as you've done) to compensate for inconsistencies. Accusing Phil of bias accomplishes nothing positive. He's given you the data, now use it.

All this talk about Phil's Bias is getting a little tired. This subject seems to creep up each time he does an Oly review.

Let's move on.

Tony
--
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=579&page=user_images

...as well as several other DPR forums regularly for several months now. While I don't always agree with his final conclusions, or even the means used to reach those conclusions, I have absolutely no doubt that Phil is one of the most honest and unbiased digital camera reviewers that you will find on the internet or in print. Futhermore, he has not even posted his E-500 review yet (what's posted is a preview). Give the guy a chance!

SM

Melbourne Park said:

Just another example of bias: Phil's review before test on this
site of the E-500. Phil says:

" As you can see with the E-500 set to HQ 1/8 it's not far behind
the EOS 350D for the number of frames shot in 30 seconds, ... "

But what Phil does not do is test the same size file. In the first
comparison, the file size for the E-500 is 1,830 KB, while the
Canon's file size is 1,200 KB. If one crops to adjust for usual
extra cropping required for the sensor size of the XT, the Canon
should be tested with a file greater than 2,000 KB.

In the second comparison Phil says the E-500 is a whole lot slower:
" ... however switch up to a higher quality setting (HQ 1/4) and
the performance isn't so good, and you have to keep releasing and
re-pressing the shutter release. "

BUT, the size of the E-500 file is 3,900 KB, while the Canon's is
effectively half the size, the whole file being 2,400 KB.

If Phil wasn't biased, he'd compare Apples with Apples.

Since the E-500's HQ 1/8 standard is effectively the same size as
Canon's HQ, that file being 2,400 KB on the Canon compared to the
E-500's 1830 KB ( a file on most printers that will not have to be
cropped to fit production papers). If one compares those two files,
the E-500 is faster, 80 to 71 frames.

I wonder how good the E-500 would have been if Olympus had of put
some more fast cache in the camera, and put some settings in the
camera called " XT HQ res", just for the reviewers to test apples
with apples ... but then again, that's not possable is it, with the
4:3 having an advantage in being a wider shaped sensor.

Click to expand...

relax

I rarely post any kind of antagonistic comment on here, and in fact I go out of my way to make sure people understand the neutral nature of my posts. But, I am so sick of reading about Phil's supposed bias. No, I don't have an Olympus right now. I have a Canon 1D Mark II. I used to have an Olympus E-1, and might get their new model depending on what they come out with next year.

That said, I have found Phil's reviews to basically be more in depth and informative than just about any other site on the net. I was disappointed when I read his review on the E-1, but I got one anyway. And, he was right. Olympus made a good product, but it was already a day late and a dollar short when it first hit the market. I loved the camera, and it was fantastic at some specific things, but it fell short in areas.

You obviously haven't ready Phil's responses in the past and even in the not-too-distant past about his "bias" and/or his issues with getting Olympus samples to review. If Phil took the time to measure every possible different variable between this camera and the other camera to satisfy each and every person that hits this site, I suspect he would still be working on the D30 review right about now.

Remember, even with looking at charts and graphs and measuring everything you can, most of this is still subjective when it comes to making an assessment of cameras. He has a right to his opinion (especially since it's his site) and you have a right to your opinion. But, just because the two of you might disagree doesn't mean you have to attack with claims of "BIAS!!!!"

I'm telling you one thing, these forums are just getting so far out in left field any more. You can barely find good substantive posts anymore that actually help assist people and further real knowledge about the art of photography and about the gear.
--
Best Regards,

Garrett Lucas

he matched the files sizes up as close as possible with what camera settings were available.

We all know the E-300 and the E-500 don't perform as good as some of the competion in extended burst shooting. Mainly because Oly decided not to cripple the usefullness of jpegs by overly compressing them. Oly lets you decide how compression to use and for that I thank them.

I for one have yet yo shoot more than 3 shots in a row, by then the action has moved too far or too fast and it's time to recompose the scene. I'm sure there are those that like or need to shoot 20 or more shots in a row, so if that's you then set the jpeg level accordingly and you'll be able to do so with reasonable results, or get a Nikon D2 whatever or Canon 1D whatever and shoot at 6 or 8 FPS until you run out of memory.

But running off at the mouth over what you percieve as bias, suggests you are likely a troll looking to stir the pot.

If you don't like the results or how tests are done on this site, there are a number of others that might suit you better.

Oh, and get a life )

Crop or no Crop I was under the impression that they were both 8MP images... If Canon has better compression than Olympus should that tax be levied against the Canon body? Besides, if you want the Olympus just buy it... Neither of those bodies are speed demons and shouldn't be considered as such when looking for a purchase.

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

This is the Olympus SLR forum, not a whiner forum. It was a fairly small detail.

I for one am grateful that Phil pushed that preview out as quickly as he did. And overall, his remarks were quite positive, and as far as I can tell, quite unbiased. The E500 appears to compare quite well to the competition, and does seem to work better at higher ISO's, which is what the market seems to want.

It will be interesting to put the E500 with its kit lens up against the 350D and its kit lens. I'm not in the market for one, but a financially healthy Olympus means a better E3.

And what was the fuss about? Continuous shooting? This is a dslr, not a camcorder. Doesn't rank high on my list of must have's.

You said what I have been thinking for a long time. Glad someone said it.

Ed

Garrett Lucas said:

I'm telling you one thing, these forums are just getting so far out
in left field any more. You can barely find good substantive posts
anymore that actually help assist people and further real knowledge
about the art of photography and about the gear.
--
Best Regards,

Garrett Lucas

Click to expand...

Me and the ol' trouble were in Best Buy yesterday and no they didn't have Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for Gameboy Advance! ( Got it from Toys R Us) they did however have that placky hard to hold 350D Rebel XT at over $1,000 and if itwas even halfway decent I would have bought one, but it's not half way decent, It requires at least the battery grip.

No the winner here will be the E-500 cause that's like a LaCoste shirt and the 350D is well like Burberry, something a chav would own! Yikes, makes me shudder.

For the price, Less than I paid for my E-20, it's brilliant!
The Rebel Xt is naff!

(Sorry!, relatives from England have been over, I'll be alright in a week or Two!)

--

For all those who say that the XT is not a comparable camera to the E-500 - they are WRONG!!!

Even with the stated differences the bottom line is this:

These are both 8 Megapixel, interchangeable lens cameras that both sell for less than $1000.

A consumer with $1000 to spend will likely look at the Canon Rebel XT, Nikon D50/70, Olympus E300 & E500, Pentax *istDS and the Konica/Minolta 5D offerings. Yes, every single one of these cameras are different, but all are in the same class (6-8MP

Quit beating up Phil and calling him biased - he is simply comparing features between cameras that really are all in the same class. Now if he was compaing the E500 to the Canon 1Ds/1D/5D, then I'd scream bias, too.

Dave

From Phil's E-500 preview announcement:

"At first glance the differences between the E-300 and E-500 appear mostly cosmetic, but beneath the surface there have been a lot of changes. The more you use the E-500 the more you appreciate how much thought has gone into the flexibility and functionality of this camera."

Based on this and other comments he has posted, it looks to me like Phil REALLY wants to like the E-500. Let's hope that Oly has produced a camera he can like.

Melbourne Park said:

Just another example of bias: Phil's review before test on this
site of the E-500. Phil says:

" As you can see with the E-500 set to HQ 1/8 it's not far behind
the EOS 350D for the number of frames shot in 30 seconds, ... "

But what Phil does not do is test the same size file. In the first
comparison, the file size for the E-500 is 1,830 KB, while the
Canon's file size is 1,200 KB. If one crops to adjust for usual
extra cropping required for the sensor size of the XT, the Canon
should be tested with a file greater than 2,000 KB.

In the second comparison Phil says the E-500 is a whole lot slower:
" ... however switch up to a higher quality setting (HQ 1/4) and
the performance isn't so good, and you have to keep releasing and
re-pressing the shutter release. "

BUT, the size of the E-500 file is 3,900 KB, while the Canon's is
effectively half the size, the whole file being 2,400 KB.

If Phil wasn't biased, he'd compare Apples with Apples.

Since the E-500's HQ 1/8 standard is effectively the same size as
Canon's HQ, that file being 2,400 KB on the Canon compared to the
E-500's 1830 KB ( a file on most printers that will not have to be
cropped to fit production papers). If one compares those two files,
the E-500 is faster, 80 to 71 frames.

I wonder how good the E-500 would have been if Olympus had of put
some more fast cache in the camera, and put some settings in the
camera called " XT HQ res", just for the reviewers to test apples
with apples ... but then again, that's not possable is it, with the
4:3 having an advantage in being a wider shaped sensor.

Click to expand...

I mean really, why should we care even if you think he is biased? You can always adjust for what you percieve as a known bias. If I think he is biased, I can adjust for that myself. I'm not trying to bust your chops here - just wondering why we should care about parsing all his comments and work in such a manner - especially in a preview where he has been so positive in other comments.

And maybe he is comparing apples with apples. A Granny Smith and a Red Delicious are both apples, but one makes a much better pie! Let's see what happens when he makes the pie. ;-)

Best regards,
Mark Devine

Why you don't give Phil the benefit of the doubt and consider this- at worst- an honest mistake?

Really, I think Phil works pretty hard, we read this for free and I think he tries to be fair erring ocasionally as the human being he is.

• Raist

I found another major bias.

http://img.dpreview.com/gallery/engine.asp?photo=8&gallery=olympuse500_samples1

He has red, blue, yellow, and pink chairs, but NO GREEN CHAIRS.

Clearly shows his major bias against green chairs. Unbelievable...

...you need to come back to reality.

Brendan
--

If you shoot Nikon don't argue with Canon measurbators, they have much longer rulers.

Raist3d said:

Why you don't give Phil the benefit of the doubt and consider this-
at worst- an honest mistake?

Really, I think Phil works pretty hard, we read this for free and I
think he tries to be fair erring ocasionally as the human being he
is.

• Raist

Click to expand...

Good post I agree with that. And with many of the posts here.

Comparisons of feature sets are more important to handicamers than people who already use a DSLR.

Camera companies estimate next year DSLR sales will be two times great than 2005 in many markets.

People who buy their first DSLR will also buy lens that work best on that company's brand of DSLRs. They are much more likely to "stick" with their own first purchase of DSLR (this may apply less to the 4:3 standard if other companies such as Panasonic or later Kodak etc. enter the 4:3 arena).

This market is very big business, and Phil's site is a huge and growing resource for customers. Its in Phil's own interest to not only be impartial, but to be seen as impartial. If Phil has personal preferences, fine, but I don't think they should be part of an impartial comparison.

Its difficlult enough buying a DSLR camera when you are ignorant without having to filter out where the reviewers personal preferences exist! (take it from one who is still ignorant.)

SO, if one compares like factors, I would appreciate a comparison on like factors, that is all. I prefer the site to be accurate. For instance, why has Phil's site always claimed the E-1 has a 4.9 million p sensor, when Olympus says its effective level is 5.0?

I would encourage Phil's excellant and much appreciated site to continue to compare likes with likes where possable.

In the 2/3 colour page with click on sound output page - a STAR page in my opinion, I would recommend to compare the XT's 1200 KB file with the E-500's uncompressed 1280 x 960 sized file, which is also 1200 KB in size, the same size as the XT file which Phil chose to compare with a 1,830 KB file on the E-500.

On the other comparison, the file size for the Canon was reported as 2,400 KB. For this comparison, why not use the 2560 x 1920 pic size in HQ compression, which produces a 2,492 KB file size?

Why not compare apples with apples, is that too much of an ask?

GagBagger wrote:
Proof that smoking crack kills brain cells...

GagBagger said:

...you need to come back to reality.

Brendan

Click to expand...

Actually, Crack killed AppleJack. He jumped in and couldn't jump back....
--
shinndigg
http://www/pbase.com/shinndigg